Grand Theft Auto 5 Review - People Suck

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

TheKasp:
Wow...

At one we have in many cases people yelling that game reviewer are, let me borror some words, 'unethical' because they rate games too good and now we have a review where the reviewer gives his opinion (which is pretty much 90% of a review with the 10% being the only thing that you can judge objective [the technical aspect]) and still gives it a pretty decent score: FLAMEBAIT!!!

Jim gets flamed for giving it 9/10.

[picture see above]

The gaming community, one has to love thee...

Actually I would say that her review is really good. She also has problems with some moral scenes, but she can see past her own view and recommend it for other players (okay, she likes it as well...)
She has an opinion, but doesnt let it get in the way of her professionalism.

Also, those youtube-clowns are the worst...

lacktheknack:

Anthadlas Babyeater:

lacktheknack:

Sounds good to me. However, he played it, he didn't like a key aspect of it and it badly affected the score. Such is life, and it's really not worth having the aneurysm that some people are having over it.

Remember, people, the final score has no bearing on real life. I think everyone is forgetting this.

Review scores can easily have a bearing on Rockstars final sales however, even if it is a good game some people won't buy it based on a bad review, which is unfair to the developers as they can make a good game but still have no control over a reviewer that dislikes it for moral reasons and puts other people off from buying it.

But this isn't a "bad review". According to the Escapist's Star Standards, 3 1/2 = "deeply flawed but very good game" or "notably above average game". In this case, it's probably the former.

Again: This review made me WANT to play the game, and just sandbox the whole dang thing (since the awful characters are mostly awful in the story quests).

As for whether this review has a major effect on game sales: <checks Metacritic> No, not really.

But it is still a pity that the rating considers the game to be deeply flawed because of the reviewers personal feelings towards the game rather than a technical aspect. I think a game rating needs to be based on how functional a game is and how well it works as a game because personal feelings will be different from person to person and aren't quantifiable.

Reviewers should ofc give their personal opinion about a game but it shouldn't affect the game rating as those feelings are only valid to the person feeling them.

well, at least, with the "scumbag protagonists", they literally kill the ludonarrative dissonance that plagued part 4 especially.

You don't feel as out of character when you go on a killing spree and cause some havoc.

DVS BSTrD:
Breaking Bad the videogame?

Well, Breaking Bad actually begins with Walter being a sympathetic character and ostensibly the "good guy" and depicts his long spiral into madness and atrocity (while Pinkman's character arc goes in the opposite direction). So, it's rather more complex than GTA V sounds.

Still looking forward to it, especially for the sandbox aspects and flying planes, etc. But that street chatter does sound like it will be banal and irritating. Hopefully there will be some good tunes on the radio.

Riobux:

erttheking:
So, your main problem with it is that the main characters are completely evil? Actually...I have to say I kinda like that idea. To quote Yahtzee "Sometimes it's gratifying to play as an evil hate ridden fuck instead of a snarky self righteous pretty boy." So yeah. I respect your opinion, but I think I'll be giving this game a crack.

I'm mostly amused that "you play as bad people" is a worthy justification to penalise it 1 1/2 stars. It's like panning Silent Hill 2 because:


Or giving Payday 2 a low score because "you shoot police officers".

I just find it hilarious that contrary to the website name, escapism isn't good if it's pretending to be the bad guy. However, they're allowed their opinion, and I'm allowed to look elsewhere for reviews.

Any competent reviewer won't go into a game with a review scored at 5/5 or 10/10, and then start docking points based on things they didn't like.

It's not 'penalized' because "you play as bad people". It's a point of contention that Tito didn't think the "bad people" had a good enough narrative motivation to drive their actions. You can still sympathize with a "bad" character (as in, morally reprehensible) and in fact, if they're a well-written character then you often should.

If anything, the review states that the game was good enough despite the narrative issues that Greg still came out of it with a positive impression.

Milanezi:

lacktheknack:

Milanezi:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...

Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.

No it's not, it's subjective, subjectivism has no place in reviews. Imagine when you were back in college, your teacher couldn't give you a zero because "Well, you did give the right answer. But I hate the color BLUE, and sadly you wrote with a blue pen, so here, you get half the score." That's why I say he CAN judge by "the characters are too cruel and that does not fit the reality around them because of this and that", he CAN'T go with a hollow "I don't like bad guys so I'll punish the game".

If you don't like the subject matter and you don't have the balance to keep yourself "cold to the game", as in, forget everything and focus on objective terms, you can't review. If you hate this sort of violence in games don't review a game that has this sort of thing as part of its focus, the same goes to someone who's an extreme Halo addict making a review of Halo, the guy might ignore major problems just to give it a great review. When Baldur's Gate got that make-over for iPad, I remember here on The Escapist a reviewer who was truly honest: the guy stated he would NOT review the game, because he was such a fan of the original that his emotions might make him over critical in a negative or positive way.

I didn't get the sense that GTA V's reviewer despised the violence of the game, nor am I complaining about the game not getting 5/5. For all I know, the "missing stars" might be for an objective reason. Be that as it may, it is stupid to criticize a game founded on violence because it is "too violent"...

Subjectivism is the entire POINT of a review. "Did you enjoy the game? (y/n) Why? (reasons)"

Too many factors are subjective. If you're supposed to leave subjective items at the door, then you cannot comment on:

-Story quality
-Control quality (except in extreme circumstances)
-Graphic style
-Gameplay effectiveness
-Interest levels
-Music
-Sound design
-Engine quality (except in extreme circumstances)
-Dialog
-Map quality
etc.

There's no point in trying to change the definition of "subjective" just because you dislike one aspect of a review. If it bothers you that much, then you're better off reading a different one. Try Gamespot, they're currently being raked over the coals for giving it a 9.

HalloHerrNoob:
[quote="lacktheknack" post="6.828498.20163236"]Oh just shut up! First of all, it stopped being funny around the first time you did it, secondly it wont stop any trolls, thirdly its debatably. I mean a review should inform people if they will like the game or not...this review does not. Especially in this case it begs for a second opinion. or just a removal of the final score. Just say "hey, I didnt like it, but if you are fine with being an asshole, youll love it. Or split the score or sth.
Using a score here is like asking someone who just loves fast trash movies to rate Citizen kane. It just doesnt make much sense.

No. Bringing up DA2 annoys me endlessly, so I will repeat the headslam until people stop. It's not meant to be funny, it's meant to drive a point across.

And no, a review should NOT tell you whether you'll like it or not. You may as well ask that it bake your favorite cookies while it's at it. A review is entirely there for the reviewer to say whether or not they liked it, and the reader is supposed to read multiple reviews to gain a feel of what the game contains and what there is consensus on, and whether it's something they'll enjoy.

HalloHerrNoob:
Actually I would say that her review is really good. She also has problems with some moral scenes, but she can see past her on view and recommend it for other players (okay, she likes it as well...)
She has an opinion, but doesnt let it get in the way of her professionalism.

Also, those youtube-clowns are the worst...

So you have no clue what a review is.

Every review is opinionated. Every. Single. One. You can't review something without having an opinion because this will just amount in an evaluation of technicality - Is it well optimised for the platform? Are the controls functional? Are there bugs? Done. This is an objective review. It contains nothing about story, characters, enjoyment of the gameplay and everything else.

If someone is put off a game to such an extent that he loses all his enjoyment of it because of bad characters then he is very well within his rights to give his review of the game a score he deems fitting. Because I tell you, every single 10/10 review has their opinions as much in their way as this one.

Youtube-clowns? You mean gaming community.

Milanezi:

No it's not, it's subjective, subjectivism has no place in reviews.

Same for you. You seem to have no clue what a review is.

Anthadlas Babyeater:
But it is still a pity that the rating considers the game to be deeply flawed because of the reviewers personal feelings towards the game rather than a technical aspect. I think a game rating needs to be based on how functional a game is and how well it works as a game because personal feelings will be different from person to person and aren't quantifiable.

Reviewers should ofc give their personal opinion about a game but it shouldn't affect the game rating as those feelings are only valid to the person feeling them.

That's a fair opinion to have. I just feel the other way. :D

All I know is that I agree with him on how vile protagonists can ruin an experience, so I'm glad he brought it up.

lacktheknack:

And no, a review should NOT tell you whether you'll like it or not. You may as well ask that it bake your favorite cookies while it's at it. A review is entirely there for the reviewer to say whether or not they liked it, and the reader is supposed to read multiple reviews to gain a feel of what the game contains and what there is consensus on, and whether it's something they'll enjoy.

Well, no....shure you cant tell me if Ill like a certain kind of cookie, but you can tell me if the cookie is well made, if it is healthy, if contains good ingridients and so on and than I can find out if I like it or not.
But it makes no sense that you eat a banaa cookie if you dont like banana and than complain half of the "review" about how it tastes like banana....that doesnt help me at all.
Its just not professional.

TheKasp:

So you have no clue what a review is.

Every review is opinionated. Every. Single. One. You can't review something without having an opinion because this will just amount in an evaluation of technicality - Is it well optimised for the platform? Are the controls functional? Are there bugs? Done. This is an objective review. It contains nothing about story, characters, enjoyment of the gameplay and everything else.

If someone is put off a game to such an extent that he loses all his enjoyment of it because of bad characters then he is very well within his rights to give his review of the game a score he deems fitting. Because I tell you, every single 10/10 review has their opinions as much in their way as this one.

Youtube-clowns? You mean gaming community.

Ehm...no, thats an opinion. A review is an evaluation (check your dictionary)...its a difference. So come down from your high horse!

The thing is that half the review seems to talk about his problems with the characters (btw...something I havent read in another review), completely overshadowing things like graphic, controlls, missions, (overall) story, gameplay, atmo and so on.
It sounds more like a column than a review.

Milanezi:

lacktheknack:

Milanezi:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...

Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.

No it's not, it's subjective, subjectivism has no place in reviews. Imagine when you were back in college, your teacher couldn't give you a zero because "Well, you did give the right answer. But I hate the color BLUE, and sadly you wrote with a blue pen, so here, you get half the score." That's why I say he CAN judge by "the characters are too cruel and that does not fit the reality around them because of this and that", he CAN'T go with a hollow "I don't like bad guys so I'll punish the game".

If you don't like the subject matter and you don't have the balance to keep yourself "cold to the game", as in, forget everything and focus on objective terms, you can't review. If you hate this sort of violence in games don't review a game that has this sort of thing as part of its focus, the same goes to someone who's an extreme Halo addict making a review of Halo, the guy might ignore major problems just to give it a great review. When Baldur's Gate got that make-over for iPad, I remember here on The Escapist a reviewer who was truly honest: the guy stated he would NOT review the game, because he was such a fan of the original that his emotions might make him over critical in a negative or positive way.

I didn't get the sense that GTA V's reviewer despised the violence of the game, nor am I complaining about the game not getting 5/5. For all I know, the "missing stars" might be for an objective reason. Be that as it may, it is stupid to criticize a game founded on violence because it is "too violent"...

Reviews are criticism they are all subjective. This is not a news story it is a person's opinion on a game. If they feel like the terrible characters hurt his own enjoyment of the game that is a perfectly valid argument. What do you people want in a review, just a laundry list of features that the game contains. The game contains competent shooting controls, the game contains competent driving controls, instant 5 stars. Just saying that the shooting feels good is a subjective statement. I thought the driving in GTA4 was perfectly competent and I don't remember having much trouble, and the myriad of reviews at the time did not have a problem either, but now everyone complains about it. Everything in a review is subjective.

Milanezi, if you're looking for objectivity in reviews, what would you expect reviews to cover? Presumably, graphics, controls, framerates, glitches, etc. Those are generally pretty objective.

What about the aesthetic visual appeal of the game? What about the appeal of the story? What about how much fun it is? I don't see how you could truly be objective on those fronts, yet they're clearly a large part of many modern games.

Reviews can be subjective. See movie reviews, restaurant reviews, wine reviews, etc. What matters in for the quality of these reviews is that they clearly justify their score by providing a coherent argument. I think that has been done here.

I think it's good to have at least some correlation between gameplay and story, especially in a sandbox like GTA. If you give the player an opportunity to drive a tank at top speed down a freeway or play bumper cars with helicopters, they'll sure as hell try. (I know I did). But giving the protagonist a strong moral code and then allowing the player to make him do silly shit like this is not a good idea. It certainly didn't work for IV. Now it seems that Rockstar is trying to give us characters that we don't feel bad about sending on rampages. Their world is even more twisted, their motivations even less clear; they get off on murdering people,driving cars and doing zany shit, just like the player.

HalloHerrNoob:

lacktheknack:

And no, a review should NOT tell you whether you'll like it or not. You may as well ask that it bake your favorite cookies while it's at it. A review is entirely there for the reviewer to say whether or not they liked it, and the reader is supposed to read multiple reviews to gain a feel of what the game contains and what there is consensus on, and whether it's something they'll enjoy.

Well, no....shure you cant tell me if Ill like a certain kind of cookie, but you can tell me if the cookie is well made, if it is healthy, if contains good ingridients and so on and than I can find out if I like it or not.
But it makes no sense that you eat a banaa cookie if you dont like banana and than complain half of the "review" about how it tastes like banana....that doesnt help me at all.
Its just not professional.

However, if one is used to a standard banana (in this case, antiheroes) and this cookie is made with plantains (in this case, scumbags), then that IS a reason to be unhappy with it. (Seriously... scumbags and plantains are gross.)

Greg Tito:

Ranorak:
Question, IS there some sort of Checkpoint system with the missions?

If not, I'm going to skip this game all together.
I HATE having to drive for 10 minutes to the same fucking place, with the same fucking dialogue, for the 4th fucking time, because I got shot while I was trying to find cover, but instead just bumped into stuff in GTA 4.

Yes, there is a checkpoint system, and the missions are generally fun.

Greg

Why do you sigh your name at the bottom when it's already off to the side?

OT: It's GTA. Of course I'm picking this up. Whenever I manage to get a new console. PC gamers, I finally feel your pain.

If your main complaint was playing as morally reprehensible bad guys, I don't think I'll be bothered at all. Bring on the depravity!

Today's Episode of Jimquisition unintentionally answers this review.

shrekfan246:

Any competent reviewer won't go into a game with a review scored at 5/5 or 10/10, and then start docking points based on things they didn't like.

It's not 'penalized' because "you play as bad people". It's a point of contention that Tito didn't think the "bad people" had a good enough narrative motivation to drive their actions. You can still sympathize with a "bad" character (as in, morally reprehensible) and in fact, if they're a well-written character then you often should.

If anything, the review states that the game was good enough despite the narrative issues that Greg still came out of it with a positive impression.

I think the first problem is something of a personal grudge I'll have to admit: I've found too many times reviewers have jumped to say "this guy is morally reprehensible and has no motivation or reason why people should look beyond it", when in truth the reasons have lied open and exposed. Kane and Lynch in Kane And Lynch: Dead Men is such a symbol of this. Then again, Kane And Lynch: Dead Men has some of the best writing about personally and gives other games depicting criminals (e.g. GTA IV) a run for their money, while reviewers tended to write up how the story/writing was one of it's main weak points. There's also the argument of "why do you need to look beyond to have a bloody good time?", see Payday: The Heist as an example of this. I'll also admit a personal love for playing the bad guy.

The second thing is I actually looked into the review curious of what could level GTA V so low compared to other reviews. I find it usually more insightful to see someone point out all the problems of a game rather than observe how it does everything well. I like critics rather than reviewers. So when I stumble in like a drunk uncle who was last seen telling his brother and sister-in-law to kill themselves to see how the kids are doing, and then witness the core complaint, then I can't help but sigh loudly.

The third thing is, quite simply, The Escapist tends to be a reviewer who gives games maybe a bit of a higher grade than they deserve. It's far and few they bring out the 3 stars or below. So when it's GTA V that nearly stoops to the barrier, I am in awe.

So when I saw this, I think I was covered in both amusement and disappointment. Maybe I expected too much? Maybe I thought there would be something more here?

Greg, I think you're missing the point why the characters in GTA V are the way they supposedly are. They are adapted to the core element of the game: the gameplay. And they seem to be created to reflect the way people play the game. In GTA players entertain themselves by killing people with no reason whatsoever except for that it's fun to virtually do so. You would have a very valid point for discussion if you questioned violence as a form of entertainment gameplay-wise. But I think it's weak to justify 'killing to complete a goal' while judging story and characters that complement this kind of gameplay.

HalloHerrNoob:
Ehm...no, thats an opinion. A review is an evaluation (check your dictionary)...its a difference. So come down from your high horse!

The thing is that half the review seems to talk about his problems with the characters (btw...something I havent read in another review), completely overshadowing things like graphic, controlls, missions, (overall) story, gameplay, atmo and so on.
It sounds more like a column than a review.

It varies strongly dependant on what you actually review. A scientific evaluation of a topic won't include opinion based material unless it is used in some from of stochastic.
Anything that includes aspects that have no objective metrics to follow you will always have opinionbased evaluation. While you of course still have an objective aspect in form of the technical side you will also have a subjective aspect that evaluates how those parts work for the reviewer. Especially movie, music, book and game reviews are in this category and games, where the whole entertainment value is pretty much subjective, fall into a category that make every game review just an opinion. A well stated and evaluated opinion but still just that.

I would suggest you get off your high horse and thing for a minute.

How do you judge a story subjective. Atmosphere, aesthetics. Fuck, even controls have a big subjective value to them.

lacktheknack:
snip

Thanks for fighting the good fight. the idea of subjective reviews is just crazy, I will just go on believing that miracle of sounds songs are the best reviews the net.

On topic great review I see that my lack of interest in gta is not due to change.

Meh, so it's Hotline Miami with good graphics and cars. You are supposed to hate the characters.... that is kinda the point. It's holding up a mirror to the glorification of violence and how some people are just scumbags. No real reason why, they just are. It's a good life lesson if you haven't already learned it.

I will wait for it on PC and play it when it has a proper (upscaled) resolution.

zerragonoss:

lacktheknack:
snip

Thanks for fighting the good fight. the idea of subjective reviews is just crazy, I will just go on believing that miracle of sounds songs are the best reviews the net.

To be fair, Miracle of Sound's songs are the best reviews on the net. :P

I have to say I was worried about this. Definitely less excited about the game though I'll still end up playing it probably. Lack of motivation for characters, especially motivation to do bad things, can definitely be a deal breaker. And that scene with Trevor seems to highlight everything I hate about crime-based characters done wrong. Also I have noticed that everyone seems to have skipped over his criticisms of actual gameplay mechanics.

TheKasp:

HalloHerrNoob:
Actually I would say that her review is really good. She also has problems with some moral scenes, but she can see past her on view and recommend it for other players (okay, she likes it as well...)
She has an opinion, but doesnt let it get in the way of her professionalism.

Also, those youtube-clowns are the worst...

So you have no clue what a review is.

Every review is opinionated. Every. Single. One. You can't review something without having an opinion because this will just amount in an evaluation of technicality - Is it well optimised for the platform? Are the controls functional? Are there bugs? Done. This is an objective review. It contains nothing about story, characters, enjoyment of the gameplay and everything else.

If someone is put off a game to such an extent that he loses all his enjoyment of it because of bad characters then he is very well within his rights to give his review of the game a score he deems fitting. Because I tell you, every single 10/10 review has their opinions as much in their way as this one.

Youtube-clowns? You mean gaming community.

Milanezi:

No it's not, it's subjective, subjectivism has no place in reviews.

Same for you. You seem to have no clue what a review is.

No, I don't think YOU understand what subjectivism is. It's one thing to say "the characters are badly written: the whole story is a romance drama, and everything leads you to believe your characters are pretty nice guys, only when you get to the gameplay itself you're forced to commit extremely violent acts that have no place in the story that was set", see, this guy OBJECTIVELY reviewed character and story, his taste doesn't matter, what matters is "does it make sense in the games environment? and does it deliver its promise (which is as near as "is it fun" as you can get)?"; what we got here instead was "the game is a crime drama where you control three psychos. I hate crime, I hate raw - virtual - criminals, I have a high moral standards. this is a game of ill repute, I hate it" in short, he doesn't know what he's talking about, it's GTA, you don't review CoD and complain about the use of guns, know what I'm saying? He did not tell us if the characters he hates so much fit that universe or not. Look, I HATE soccer, i hate it with all my guts, I'm NEVER getting near a soccer video game, and I'm never gonna review one because I KNOW I'll say it's an awful game, even if it's good, I'll be biased, but I know that because I'm self-conscious that i don't like that sport. If he's conscious that he doesn't like "scumbag criminals" (like 90% of GTA's protagonists) he shouldn't be reviewing a game from a series known for that sorta character... Subjectivism is never right nor wrong, it's personal taste, you think it's right to demerit ANYTHING due to your personal taste? No, subjectivism is what you keep to YOURSELF to make your OWN decision. You can't argue against subjectivism exactly due to that, I can't tell you what you should or not enjoy, but I can argue with you, for instance, why the processor of console A is better than console B, and I might even be wrong, or maybe we decide that one is better for shadows, the other for texture. Of course he can lay out his subjective view in the review, but he can't judge on that, and he MUST build something on top of that, which he most certainly did not do.

I'd like to think that everyone was above the whole fuss about review scores thing at this point, but then I guess that is just wishful thinking on my part. A quick look at metacritic shows several "perfect" scores for GTAV which I imagine will be more than enough to validate your expectations and pre-order if this review doesn't do that for you.

Now on to the real important stuff, the actual content of review. I guess it is always going to be a problem when you base a story around characters that do bad things for little justification, that some will feel that a line is crossed where sympathy for the characters becomes impossible and they become reprehensible. This is especially true of violent criminals as often you can boil down the many reasons why someone may commit these acts to self interest. Of course it is not always necessary that characters be sympathetic for them to be entertaining. So does that make it wrong to mark down an otherwise good game based on the fact that you find the characters horrible? I'd say no, it can be a fair criticism if the reviewer feels that it hurts the game. Is Greg right in this? I don't know, I've not played the game. I'll reserve judgement on the characters until I get the chance to experience them myself.

in every gta i find a tank and drive through the city. these people are actually better than i am. . .

When I got to the end of the the review and saw the score I raised an eyebrow, mostly because this was actually the first review I read. Jarring really when all others are near universally perfect so far.

Either way I'll wait for the PC version. Don't get me wrong, I do want to play this game and I'll no doubt love it, very much so but there's a good chance the PC may be the best version. I've still got other games for now.

Not that this post matters, I can already see the internet storm coming this way, should be interesting really.

The Artificially Prolonged:
I'd like to think that everyone was above the whole fuss about review scores thing at this point, but then I guess that is just wishful thinking on my part. A quick look at metacritic shows several "perfect" scores for GTAV which I imagine will be more than enough to validate your expectations and pre-order if this review doesn't do that for you.

Its not really about the score (although as I said it begs for a split score or none at all).
Its just that half of the review seems to talk about his moral problems with the game, which, in my opinion, is rather a column and less a review (an evaluation, of the whole product).

saxman234:

Isn't a review supposed to be a critique of a game and not just a laundry list of what the game does? Are reviews really journalism? I think of journalism as more like news stories. Reviews are critiques. All reviews are subjective. One person may find the controls smooth, and feel like the cars handle well and other people may hate it. Handling and gameplay are part of reviews but that is not the only thing that make up a review. Reviews are more about the player's experience. Just because this review brings up new points that you do not care about does not mean everyone else does not care about this. I found this review interesting because it discussed questionable game design choices Rockstar made that dissuaded Greg Tito from enjoying the game more. Is this not important enough to discuss?

Also, Jim Sterling gave Deadly Premonition a 10, which controls and feels terrible. Should that review be taken off metacritic? That game is great for other reasons but not for the controls or even basic gameplay.

Sorry, but when I read a review, I want objective criticisms of the game. A reviewer can point out that he did not enjoy something, but it should not affect his actual score. The only thing that should affect score are actual overarching flaws, like bad controls or confusing story-telling or the like. "I couldn't sympathize with the character waaaah 3.5/5" does not come across as professional. "The cars handled like they were greased with sunflower oil 3.5/5" would be a valid reason for me to mark a game down.

A review score should reflect the quality of a game, not be marred by personal taste. A special section at the end of the review can certainly be used to explain some misgivings of the reviewer, as Greg did. But those misgivings are reflected in the review score.

I have read plenty of other reviews of this game, most of which do contain criticisms and reviewers pointing out things that felt off to them. But overall score in a professional review should always be used to show how worthy the game is.

Someone here said that Kane and Lynch got 3/5 stars from the Escapist. That puts GTAV half a star above a truly terrible game.

There is a reason most user reviews on Metacritic read like "I didn't like this and this and this 2/10." That's not a review. That's an opinion.

Gred did not write a review. He wrote an opinion. A good reviewer, for me, can write a unique and witty sounding review while not compromising his ability to give information.

Say what you want about IGN, but their review of this actually told me what the game is like. They told me how the cars handle and how the gunplay goes. The IGN review made clear that you are playing fucked up people, touching upon their flaws and why aspects of them sometimes feel off. But the ultimate review score actually reflects the game.

And you know what? Greg's review of Dragon Age 2 back then actually gave me the final push to buy it. I thought "Wow, how can so much genuine enthusiasm and great personal experience be wrong?" Guess who wishes she'd listened to all those other reviewers, who objectively said the story was incoherent, the environments were terrible and dialogue flat?

A reviewer's personal preferences SHOULD affect the score of the game. That's what a review is. Someone's opinion on the game. It is impossible to give an objective score.

The GTA IV series, in my opinion, got increasingly worse the more serious they tried to make it. Rockstar couldn't write their way out of a box, and I'm not at all surprised Tito took offense to their writing.

Mahoshonen:

Here it is, folks, the absolute nadir of the gaming community!

I don't even get what your point is? Are you saying that context excuses poor characterization? Because that is very wrong. There is a reason why I enjoy a character like Kratos but dislike Kane & Lynch despite both being morally bankrupt. Or if you need a movie example, try watching Red Zone Cuba and compare it to The Goodfellas. Two sets of characters that by conventional terms are horrible people, but one group is infinitely more enjoyable to watch.

Also, selective typing in ALLCAPS is never a way to enhance your argument.

Wow....first of all, saying that this is the nadir of the gaming community just shows that you have no idea....

Secondly, you dont get our argumenst at all....he doesnt talk about how the characters are badly written, or charcterised, but mostly about how he doesnt like their actions. There is a difference.
Also, yes, context can excuse poor characterisation. Mario has no personality at all (mostly), every Team Ninja game is a walking pile of clichees and sexism...does that mean that every Super Mario/Team Ninja game needs to get 0/5?

"Trevor's introductory scene begins with him screwing a scabby woman from behind, and then stomping her boyfriend in the face until he's dead when the cuckolded man has the nerve to confront him. See? Charming!"
..he does not say that the character is badly characterised or written. Just that he doesnt like his actions.

Also, regard this weeks Jimquisition.

everyone go to gamespot and check the review there... go to the comment section.. but i must warn you.. remember a anti-hate shield, its insane! because the game only got 9.0/10 :P and not 10/10 .. so everyone have gone mental xD

OT:
I dont care about reviews.. tomorrow im about to go into a world where i am the main character(s) and i decide what the hell i want to do :) and by satan its gonna be amazing ^^

Who'd write a GTA review, eh? I've seen people getting mardy over 9/10 scores, never mind this. The whole series has problems and reviewers should not feel pressured away from assessing them.

GTA started as a cartoonish parody of crime films. Over time Rockstar have tried to bring serious story-telling to their games but have struggled to marry this to the ultra-violent gameplay. Nowhere is this more apparent than in GTA, which depicts events that scarcely dip their toes in the waters of reality.

Milanezi:

lacktheknack:

Milanezi:
Anyway, very weak review, you can't blame GTA for having "scumbag criminals" as main characters anymore than you can blame Superman for being almost unstoppable. It's one thing to rage about the "scumbags" being "scumbags" due to POOR writing, it's another thing to complain, well that they look like cruel egotistical criminals...

Lowering the score because you don't like the subject matter is entirely valid.

No it's not, it's subjective, subjectivism has no place in reviews. Imagine when you were back in college, your teacher couldn't give you a zero because "Well, you did give the right answer. But I hate the color BLUE, and sadly you wrote with a blue pen, so here, you get half the score." That's why I say he CAN judge by "the characters are too cruel and that does not fit the reality around them because of this and that", he CAN'T go with a hollow "I don't like bad guys so I'll punish the game".

If you don't like the subject matter and you don't have the balance to keep yourself "cold to the game", as in, forget everything and focus on objective terms, you can't review. If you hate this sort of violence in games don't review a game that has this sort of thing as part of its focus, the same goes to someone who's an extreme Halo addict making a review of Halo, the guy might ignore major problems just to give it a great review. When Baldur's Gate got that make-over for iPad, I remember here on The Escapist a reviewer who was truly honest: the guy stated he would NOT review the game, because he was such a fan of the original that his emotions might make him over critical in a negative or positive way.

I didn't get the sense that GTA V's reviewer despised the violence of the game, nor am I complaining about the game not getting 5/5. For all I know, the "missing stars" might be for an objective reason. Be that as it may, it is stupid to criticize a game founded on violence because it is "too violent"...

okay, so if a reviewer hated the story and thought the characters were annoying he would still have to praise that part because the general consensus says it's cool? Why do we need several review sites if they all have to be objective, they are supposed to say the same afterall :p.

You are basically suggesting that a person should stop talking about a game if he doesn't like it or he should start lying to echo public opinion. It seems like a lot of work to do reviews this way, how do you make sure that your opinion matches the correct opinion?
Personally i read reviews because i want to hear what other people think, i want to hear opinions of people who have experience writing about videogames. I want to hear their true opinion and if it's different than my own. then that's just interesting.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here